Bail For Juvenile Under Age 16 Is A Matter Of Course: Allahabad HC Directs Release Of Juvenile In POCSO Case
The Allahabad High Court directed the release of a juvenile on bail implicated in a rape case observing that the grant of bail to a juvenile under the age of 16 was a matter of course.
The Lucknow Bench noted that the juvenile was under 16 years of age, meaning he did not fall into the category of juveniles aged 16 to 18, whose cases might be viewed differently if they were found to have a mature mind and understood the consequences of their actions. Bail provisions for juveniles are outlined in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 16 years, is a matter of course and it is only in the event that his case falls under one or the other disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that bail may be refused. The merits of the case against a juvenile acquire some relevance under the last clause of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that speaks about the ends of justice being defeated. The other two disentitling categories are quite independent and have to be evaluated with reference to the circumstances of the juvenile. Those circumstances are to be gathered from the Social Investigation Report, the police report and in whatever other manner relevant facts enter the record.”
Advocate Mohammad Alishah Faruqi represented the revisionist, while AGA Ashok Kumar Singh appeared for the opposite parties.
The Juvenile, along with another minor accomplice, was accused of allegedly raping, beating, and threatening to kill an 11-year-old minor girl. The Juvenile was consequently put under institutional incarceration after an FIR was lodged under Sections 376 DB, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 5m and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.
The bail application of the Juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Special Judge (POCSO) Act (Special Judge). The Juvenile contended he was falsely implicated and there were no substantial grounds for his continued detention.
The Juvenile argued that he had been incarcerated since 2022 and had completed a substantial period of the sentence out of the maximum three years of institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile under Section 18(1)(g) of the JJ Act.
The Court stated that the juvenile was earlier disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12 of the JJ Act, for which no reason has been indicated by either the Special Judge or the Board. “Finding, in both the orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit,” the Court added.
The Bench explained that even if it were to be assumed that the offence was committed in the manner alleged, it would be “strained logic” to hold that the release of the juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of justice being defeated. “Both the courts below have also overlooked the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC and further the courts below have also not considered the radiological age of the victim as per the medical report,” the Court stated.
“What is of prime importance in this case is that the juvenile, who is a young boy, less than the age of 16 years, has no criminal history. There is nothing said against the juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation Report that may show him to be a desperado or misfit in the society,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Board and the Special Judge and granted bail to the juvenile on the condition that “...the natural guardian/father Ram Das of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Juvenile 'Xyz’ v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:43063)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocates Mohammad Alishah Faruqi and Mohd. Suhail
Opposite Party: AGA Ashok Kumar Singh
